To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

2012 OK Integrated Report
Appendix G – Response to Comments
Appendix G – Page 1 of 4
Appendix G – Response to Public Comments
Comments were received from:
(a) Graham Brannin, City of Tulsa (COT)
(b) Jami Skimbo, City of Tulsa (Tulsa)
(c) Bruce Noble, U.S. National Park Service (NPS)
(d) Julie Shannon, City of Bethany (Bethany)
(e) Don Molnar, ODAFF (ODAFF)
(f) U.S. EPA Region 6 (EPA)
This key is used in the summary of comments below to identify the commenter. DEQ responses to comments are indicated in italics.
1. (COT) Page 8, 2nd paragraph – “Tulsa Public Works and Development” should be changed to “City of Tulsa”. DEQ Response: This correction has been made in the final report. 2. (COT) Shouldn’t the Cross Timbers ecoregion have biological criteria? DEQ Response: The biocriteria map in the Draft 2012 Integrated Report is not the correct map. The correct version of the map has been included in the final report. The biocriteria specified in Chapter 46 are based on historical ecoregion boundaries which did not include an ecoregion named “Cross Timbers.” A majority of the ecoregion named “Cross Timbers” in the latest ecoregion map is covered by the ecoregion name “Central Oklahoma-Texas Plains” in Chapter 46 and in the proper map that is now included in the final version of the 2012 Integrated Report. 3. (COT) Page 43, it references “OAC 785:46-15-5 (see Figure 12)” – there is no such figure in the document. DEQ Response: This was a typographical error and has been corrected to properly refer to Figure 4 in the final version of the report. 4. (COT) There is concern that Blue Thumb volunteer biological screening collections and analysis are treated the same as Oklahoma Conservation Commission and OWRB data. The methods, training, and QA are vastly different. The Blue Thumb data should not be used to determine impairment. DEQ Response: A limited scope of Blue Thumb data has been utilized in use support assessments for years. Previously, most of the data used have been bacteria, which were collected and analyzed using the same procurement and laboratory methods employed by OCC’s ambient monitoring program. Blue Thumb biological collections are made using the same methods, training, and Quality Assurance (QA) as OCC’s ambient program. In fact, all Blue Thumb biological collections are made only under the direct oversight and effort of OCC staff; none is exclusively volunteer collected. All data are collected under an EPA approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), which due to the rigor of collection effort, clearly conveys the intent to employ biological data in use support assessment, as demonstrated in this excerpt from the Blue Thumb QAPP: The general monitoring is executed to gather rudimentary data for education programs and is not intended or designed for enforcement purposes. However, biological data collections (fish and macroinvertebrates) and instream habitat assessments are obtained under direct supervision of OCC staff following OCC Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), so these data are used for assessment of streams in accord with Oklahoma State Standards to determine attainment of relevant designated uses. No Change was made as a result of this comment. 5. (COT) I would like to review the latest data collected by the contributing agencies. DEQ Response: Water quality data is collected by various agencies in the State. Upon request, DEQ can direct you to the proper agencies responsible for the collection of data on specific waterbodies. No change was made as a result of this comment.

2012 OK Integrated Report
Appendix G – Response to Comments
Appendix G – Page 1 of 4
Appendix G – Response to Public Comments
Comments were received from:
(a) Graham Brannin, City of Tulsa (COT)
(b) Jami Skimbo, City of Tulsa (Tulsa)
(c) Bruce Noble, U.S. National Park Service (NPS)
(d) Julie Shannon, City of Bethany (Bethany)
(e) Don Molnar, ODAFF (ODAFF)
(f) U.S. EPA Region 6 (EPA)
This key is used in the summary of comments below to identify the commenter. DEQ responses to comments are indicated in italics.
1. (COT) Page 8, 2nd paragraph – “Tulsa Public Works and Development” should be changed to “City of Tulsa”. DEQ Response: This correction has been made in the final report. 2. (COT) Shouldn’t the Cross Timbers ecoregion have biological criteria? DEQ Response: The biocriteria map in the Draft 2012 Integrated Report is not the correct map. The correct version of the map has been included in the final report. The biocriteria specified in Chapter 46 are based on historical ecoregion boundaries which did not include an ecoregion named “Cross Timbers.” A majority of the ecoregion named “Cross Timbers” in the latest ecoregion map is covered by the ecoregion name “Central Oklahoma-Texas Plains” in Chapter 46 and in the proper map that is now included in the final version of the 2012 Integrated Report. 3. (COT) Page 43, it references “OAC 785:46-15-5 (see Figure 12)” – there is no such figure in the document. DEQ Response: This was a typographical error and has been corrected to properly refer to Figure 4 in the final version of the report. 4. (COT) There is concern that Blue Thumb volunteer biological screening collections and analysis are treated the same as Oklahoma Conservation Commission and OWRB data. The methods, training, and QA are vastly different. The Blue Thumb data should not be used to determine impairment. DEQ Response: A limited scope of Blue Thumb data has been utilized in use support assessments for years. Previously, most of the data used have been bacteria, which were collected and analyzed using the same procurement and laboratory methods employed by OCC’s ambient monitoring program. Blue Thumb biological collections are made using the same methods, training, and Quality Assurance (QA) as OCC’s ambient program. In fact, all Blue Thumb biological collections are made only under the direct oversight and effort of OCC staff; none is exclusively volunteer collected. All data are collected under an EPA approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), which due to the rigor of collection effort, clearly conveys the intent to employ biological data in use support assessment, as demonstrated in this excerpt from the Blue Thumb QAPP: The general monitoring is executed to gather rudimentary data for education programs and is not intended or designed for enforcement purposes. However, biological data collections (fish and macroinvertebrates) and instream habitat assessments are obtained under direct supervision of OCC staff following OCC Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), so these data are used for assessment of streams in accord with Oklahoma State Standards to determine attainment of relevant designated uses. No Change was made as a result of this comment. 5. (COT) I would like to review the latest data collected by the contributing agencies. DEQ Response: Water quality data is collected by various agencies in the State. Upon request, DEQ can direct you to the proper agencies responsible for the collection of data on specific waterbodies. No change was made as a result of this comment.